Pages

Monday, May 31, 2010

Jim Wallis is a prime adviser to Barack Hussain Obama. Like Obama's previous spiritual surrogate daddy, The Wrong Rev. Wright, Wallis is a collectivist who parades in clerical vestments, preaching a gospel of envy, BIG GOVERNMENT, and compulsory conduct.

In a piece for the Huffin' Pros last week, Wallis managed to promulgate a pack of lies in support of his true religion (Collectivism), and derogation of the TEA Party movement...all in the name of Christianity.

First, he defined the TEA Party as essentially Libertarian. That is false, as I am sure he knows. The TEA Party movement is not homogeneous, and it has elements from across the political spectrum. But Wallis had a purpose in labeling the TEA Party a bunch of Libertarians.

For his next trick, he defined...falsely...what Libertarians believe, and he did THAT with a purpose, as well.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle [to what???]. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This "just leave me alone and don't spend my money" option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement.

Having built this straw TEA Party, Wallis is ready to get down to work.

Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.

1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question "Are we our brother's keeper?" is decidedly "Yes."

That was juicy, rich, and chock full 'o lies. Where to begin...?!?!? How about this; Libertarianism is, as Wallis told us in his piece, a POLITICAL philosophy. As such, it does not displace RELIGION, especially Christianity ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."). The two can co-exist happily in the same noggin, and often do.

While not a (even pretended) man of God, I think it is manifestly clear that individual choice IS a pre-eminent Christian value. It is also a pre-eminent Jewish value. Volition is central to each. Does Wallis suggest that God will force us to Heaven...that the Widow's mite would be an acceptable offering if compelled under the tax collector's lash? That the re-dedication of Yom Kippur could happen under threat of violence?

But note the next formulation Wallis proffers: "individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good". How does any rational person write a sentence like that? Oh, I remember...Wallis is a collectivist! So he is not rational! Let's expand on that one level, though, just to show how corrupt is Wallis. "Individual freedom of speech at the expense of others violates the common good." You can see where that's going. Just plug in your favorite Constitutional right.

2. An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical.[snip] But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.

Gee, you get the impression that Wallis would feel right at home in the court of a medieval king, arrayed in his priestly ermine robes, declaring it was God's will that us vassals subject ourselves to the king. By Wallis' "thinking", the American Revolution was not "Biblical".

But also note the lie that says, "TEA Party people are opposed to government per se". I know of nobody who thinks that. We do believe that, "...a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice". And we believe ...recognize...that we have such a government, and that is what Wallis advocates.

3. The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. [snip] Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism - just as it is essential for the government. And God's priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.

In that passage (read the whole despicable thing), Wallis turns reality on its head, and reveals, yet again, his love for the collective and its reliance on force. Note that FASCIST economics...which Obama practices every day...is what gives us a corporatist collective, which is by definition totalitarian.

No conservative or Libertarian I know considers market capitalism perfect...just VASTLY superior to an economy directed by the likes of Jim Wallis, Andy Stearn, Rahm Emmanual, and Barack Hussain Obama. We also understand that America has not seen a true market economy at work in our life-times.

One brilliant aspect of capitalism is that individuals are perfectly free to live according to "God's priorities... not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce". Far out...Go for it...! Capitalism will give you the means AND the choice to do that. Wallis would take both from you.

4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. "Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money" is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage.

This perfidious crap is vintage collectivist doggerel. There are metrics that show conservatives...and I suppose Libertarians, too...are WAY more charitable than are collectivists like Wallis. Just ask yourself this: if you were POOR, in Kenya, who's half-brother would you rather be; Barack Hussain Obama's, or Rush Limbaugh's?

And, as we've pointed out, POLITICS does not displace RELIGION.

5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.

Um...can you say "NAACP", Jim? But there IS something wrong with a national election where 95%+ of a racial segment votes for a man who has values OPPOSITE values that group expresses in polls. There IS something wrong in a country where people who are conservative AND black are called Oreos, and made pariahs, and where going to a TEA Party has to be an act of enormous moral courage.

Jim Wallace is another wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the anti-Christian facsimile...the hologram...the collective projects to dupe Christians with a perversion of their own doctrines and texts. Kick his dust off your shoes.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

If the Obami can try to manipulate the coverage of the Sestak scandal by their late-Friday-before-a-holiday puking of information, then I think it is the sacred duty of the blogosphere to keep the pot stirred over the Memorial Day weekend.

We are now dealing with the ObaBubba--an unholy creature composed of two of the most pathological personalities ever to occupy the White House.

They have concocted a THIRD WAY story around the Sestak affair that is literally incredible. All this seems like deja vu all over again.

Here is what we now know:

Somebody offered Sestak something. This is admitted.

The offer was a clear quid pro quo; IF you do this, THEN we will give you this. This is admitted.

For months, the Obami stonewalled the story, paying a political price in the process.

Administration lawyers have reviewed the matter; nothing to see here, move on.

Yet, in certain circumstances, the Obami admit their actions could be highly ILLEGAL.

Bill Clinton, who could have come forward months ago to dispel the controversy, NOW is a player.

Sestak is now making statements that cannot be squared with his previous recorded remarks.

Eric Holder has been asked, and refused, to appoint a special prosecutor.

This is actually good. As any good trial lawyer knows, you learn a great deal from any exposition of your opponent's case...even if you know they are lying. For one thing, to use a combat metaphor, you can sometimes spot planes by seeing where the stars are not. For another, you can spot weaknesses...like what your opponent feels most guilty over...by what they defend the hardest.

Here is why anyone with a brain has to be suspicious...or beyond...about this story:

SOMEBODY made this offer. It seems totally beyond credibility that the Obami would choose...and he would accept...Bill Clinton as their water-boy.

Bubba Clinton could...at any point in time...put the kibosh on this controversy. Who could stop him?

This week is the first iteration of Bubba's name in this story (near as I can tell).

Any competent lawyer could evaluate the story...as told...and the applicable law in a day. A week at most, and that would allow time to interview everyone involved.

There was no need for the Administration to DENY the story as told.

There was no need to pay the political price of a months-long stonewall.

As I've noted before, the conduct of the Obami suggested (pretty conclusively) that Sestak's ORIGINAL story was true, and he could prove it. That is CONFIRMED by the concoction of a (to me) facially false THIRD WAY, where the Obami ADMIT the offer, but make it as innocuous as possible.

The sponsor of the ObaBubba third way story is a known perjurer, but a highly talented political maven.

Sestak certainly appears to have been suborned into the third way account, and is struggling to discount his own on-record statements.

So, this is my little contribution to the stirring of the pot this holiday weekend...from The Blog That Nobody ReadsTM. Happy Memorial Day...!!!

Friday, May 28, 2010

Yeah, Obama is telling America to just swallow a load on the Sestak scandal. He's brought in an expert on the concept, convicted perjurer and national disgrace Bill Clinton. Next, we'll be told we might want to "put some ice on that...". Obama isn't even offering us a cigarette.

The whole deal is beyond incredible. For you to swallow the load, you have to accept the notion that--

1. Sestak was being offered a "job" that nobody would apply that term to...an unpaid position on some board or other. He's a Congressman, for Pete's sake...he already sits on THREE worthless unpaid boards (House Armed Services Committee, House Education and Labor Committee, and House Small Business Committee), while getting paid as a Congress-critter.

2. Obama/Rahm/Clinton thought that this worthless dangle would be shiny enough to get a guy out of a senatorial race.

3. The Obami thought this putative innocuous offer was something they had to stonewall for months.

4. They would use Bill Clinton as their water-boy to convey the "offer".

5. All the back-and-forth with Sestak, Clinton, Sestak's brother, and WH counsel Bauer over the last 48 hours means NOTHING.

I'm not going along with Obama's offer. I hope and pray that conservative members of Congress are not going to swallow, either, and that they keep the pressure on.

The whole notion that crime is a consequence of poverty has been debunked. People CHOOSE to commit crime...or far worse, TERRORISM. They are NOT victims of unhappy circumstances. But not amid the Obami radicals.

As Jennifer Rubin noted today: "When language is misused or contorted, it usually means something is being concealed. In this case, what’s being concealed is a counter-factual foreign policy that ignores threats, refuses to recognize the identity of our foes, and declines to assert American power in defense of our values and interests."

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

Brennan...and his loopy boss...simply cannot accept that MILLIONS of Islamists do not see "jihad" as purifying themselves, but as a call to Islamify the planet. And to do it by whatever means it takes.

This is, of course, no surprise at all to people who live in reality. But to Harvard Business School academics, this is just gob-stopping.

Recent research at Harvard Business School began with the premise that as a state's congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C., local businesses would benefit from the increased federal spending sure to come their way.It turned out quite the opposite. In fact, professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy discovered to their surprise that companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses. Indeed, in the years that followed a congressman's ascendancy to the chairmanship of a powerful committee, the average firm in his state cut back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent, according to their working paper, "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?"

The Caliphate-On-Hudson (formerly New York City) is a model and a warning for America. A combination of very bad ideas is working to destroy what was once a dynamo of American enterprise and pluralism.

Al-Qaeda in Manhattan.
The al-Qaeda Intelligence Arm in Manhattan (aka The New York Times) continued its practice of providing vital information to our Jihadist enemies. "Just another act of deadly treason" tells the story rather well.

"Build Our Mosques On Their Bones"
I don't know if anyone ever said that, but they are doing it. Nor do I object to the building of mosques. I know of several in my near-by city. I was one of the people immediately after 9/11 who was prepared to mount a watch to assure that no hot-heads committed any vandalism...or worse...in connection with those mosques. It never was needed. But I don't believe it is wise or appropriate to build a super-mosque/madrasah where it will hover over Ground Zero.

Times Square and other dhimmitude centers
Times Square...recently targeted by another disciple of "the religion of pieces", unimpeded by anything the Obami did...is the home of Comedy Central's parent company. Comedy Central, that bastion of courage when it comes to anti-Christian iconoclasm and attacks on anything traditional in American culture, folded like a cheap tent at the first instance of a threat over airing South Park's send-off on Mohamed.

In the face of overwhelming support by the people citizens of Arizona and the entire U.S., the collective is trotting out the canard that enforcing law will result in more crime.

"This is not a law that increases public safety. This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs," Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said. "Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state."

Well, too late, Charlie! The law IS the law in Arizona, and several other jurisdictions are headed in that direction.

But let's look at the argument these APPOINTED police chiefs are putting forward:

The new Arizona law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes, chiefs from Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia said. They will join their counterparts from Montgomery County and a half-dozen other U.S. cities in meeting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday morning to discuss the measure.

I've heard the same nonsense from Bill White, candidate for Texas Governor and former Mayor of Houston, Texas. "Why, golly, if police are made immigration cops, they just won't have time for effective crime prevention." As I wrote a while back:

How does it REMOTELY cost good crime fighting...for the city to ALWAYS refer the illegal alien to ICE? I suggest the opposite is true, and for this reason; illegal aliens are disproportionately likely to commit crime, as compared to other segments of our population.

In fact, I think it deductively obvious that RELEASING an illegal alien from either a custodial stop or actual incarceration is IRRESPONSIBLY EXPENSIVE. We have them; we know or can learn their status; how is "catch and release" anything but a poke in the eye of immigration law...or effective police work? A very good case can be made that the White policy...which is used by other Texas mayors...cost several peace officers their lives.

The other half of that BS is that illegal aliens will not cooperate with police investigations if they are prone to suffer the consequence of being in this country illegally. There are several things wrong with that--

There is nothing in the Arizona law that would suggest that a witness would have their immigration status questioned. (Read the law, dammit!!!)

The same "reasoning" would argue that we should not enforce drug law, since a drug user would have the same theoretical reluctance to provide information to police investigating a crime. (The same applies to any law and offender.)

The idea presupposes that illegals are cooperative with police investigations now. That isn't established: "[Pinal County Sheriff Paul] Babeu called the police chiefs' argument "'flawed from the beginning.'" Cooperation from illegal immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico, is already low, he said, because they are in the United States illegally and because of law enforcement corruption in their native countries. "'Somehow when they appear in the U.S., magically their perception of law enforcement improves overnight?'" Babeu said."

Police are not stupid; they extend protection within their discretion NOW to witnesses or informants in exchange for information. In the Arizona law, there is more than adequate discretion for officers to simply avoid the ambit of immigration status when questioning a cooperative witness.

The argument that there is a population of people who will not cooperate with public safety because of their own illegal status works AGAINST, rather than FOR the Deemocrat chief's case. They are, by admission, people who present both a prey population for criminals, and a population of abettors of crime.

The chiefs behind this are APPOINTEES by very Deemocrat administrations (Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Tuscan and Phillidelphia. Sheriffs, like Babeu and Arpio, who have to face voters, and who deal with the horrific consequences of illegal immigration every day, are supportive of the new law.

Deemocrats and their appointees like "catch and release" in lieu of enforcing the law, just as they are pushing amnesty (aka "comprehensive immigration reform") instead of securing our borders.

In one of my first posts on this blog, I observed two things, concluded from the behavior of the players in the Sestak drama; 1) Sestak's story of a bribe attempt was substantially true, and 2) there was evidence that supported his story.

Hence, you have Robert "Fibs" Gibbs dodging questions for months...but carefully avoiding a direct denial. If Sestak was lying, the Obami would have no trouble saying so. If Sestak could not prove his allegations...repeated several times now...the Obami would say he was lying, making it a "he-said-we-say" proposition that would never be determined objectively.

The Obami apparently hoped this story would simply die, perhaps with the complicit press playing the same "silencer" role they played in the nomination and election process. It does not appear to be going away.

This leaves two or three venues in which this story plays out; Congress (soon or after the mid-terms), the press (but the MSM only reluctantly), and the people (as in TEA Party types who keep the pressure on).

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

In a brazen, unprovoked attack on unsuspecting law-abiding Houstonians, Code Puke hags descended on the headquarters of BP.Thousands reportedly suffered permanent damage to optical nerves. Others, driven to madness by the sight and sound of the crones, were seen stabbing themselves in the eyes and ears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xFTaQCV3aI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPwW12Woj0s&NR=1

Immediately following their carnage, the Code Puke carlins mounted their broomsbicycles BMWs and Mercedes, and fled the scene of their horrors.

Free speech is much in the news and commentary these days, as it certainly should be. I haven't known a time in my six decades of life where it was under a greater assault on one hand, and a weaker defense (in some quarters) on the other.

On the assault side, we have two seemingly different prongs of pincer attack. The first is the assault on pluralism and the Enlightenment by Jihadists and their Muslim-on-the-street supporters, who will not brook any mention of Mohamed, his religion, its book, or much of anything else they find "disrespectful". Oh, and no images of Mohamed...some say at all, some say that are less than pious. They are, typically for them, willing to back that up with murder, mayhem, and other forms of destruction. Nice exemplars of that "religion of peace".

That sort of pales...if that is possible...compared to the special blood-lust they have for people they consider defectors; very brave, principled people who were born and raised in the Islamic religion, and who questioned and "fell away". There is a special hell-on-Earth reserved for them.

The other arm of the pincer belongs to the collective...and especially to the Obama administration. For years, the left in America has been purple with rage over the success and influence of conservative media. Radio, television, and the blogosphere are paramount in that success, with Fox News beating its competition handily in both honest reporting and...consequently...viewership. Talk radio was not invented by Rush Limbaugh, but it was rescued and exalted by him. He's been joined by an able cohort, and the left has been embarrassed every time they have tried to field a challenge.

I remember a time in America...better than most of you...when the news was the exclusive province of three networks and a hand-full of newspapers. The "news" was largely dictated by one particular newspaper, and then the networks derivatively produced their stories as some variation on what the tree-killer had deemed newsworthy. It was the proverbial echo-chamber, and it belonged to the collective.

The Orwellian-named "Fairness Doctrine" was the rule of the day. I remember well the ideal of "fairness" as practiced during that time. You did not see or hear much from conservative thinkers. There were notable exceptions; William F. Buckley on PBS, and Milton & Rose Friedman on PBS. The McLaughlin Group was another...sometimes and sort of. To this day, of course, the collective cherishes the myth and slander that there were so few conservatives on media because there are so few conservatives with brains, much less anything interesting to say.

When the government suppression of "Fairness" came off, the market for conservative ideas exploded. It is still in the expansive phase, as proven by the number of conservative books on best-seller lists at any given time. People are hungry for ideas and information.

But, as with what we can eat, Obama and his myrmidons are setting themselves up to choke off our channels for satisfying our hunger with selections of our own choosing. They plan to attack supply, since their attacks on demand have been so unsuccessful. What attacks, you ask? Well, President Cool has been trying to get you and I to understand how un-hip it is to watch Fox and listen to conservative talk. That isn't new; Bill Clinton did it, too. But BHO has turned it into open Presidential warfare as never before. Had Nixon been so openly, venomously the enemy of CBS as BHO has been of Fox, the MSM would have seen to it that he was hounded from office even faster. Imagine W attacking Dan Rather as BHO has attacked Rush Limbaugh. You can't. It is unprecedented, what we're seeing now. And this is only the beginning, it appears.

Obama's assault on the demand side didn't work, so we can count on a redoubled attack on the supply side. It will take several forms, and will be very novel and stealthy.

There is a cadre of really radical people surrounding BHO. They are not impeded in their thinking by constitutional scruples...or scruples of any kind outside of the collective dogma. They are utilitarians; all about what works for them, and hurts their opposition. They know that ideas and information matter a great deal in our democracy (increasingly nominal democracy). They've watched for years as speech has been suppressed successfully in Europe, Great Britain and Canada...not by Jihadists, though that is working really well, too...by imposition of laws and codes projecting concepts of "fairness", "diversity", and "civility". But, really, they are all naked attempts to shut down the exchange of ideas and information.

Against those attacks, what do we have? Well, the old left USED to believe in free speech. It was a defining characteristic. Not now, though. The collective deplores any deviation from the script...any challenge. The more effective the challenge, the more clever the speaker, the more hated and reviled they are and the harder they will try to shut them up. This isn't about persuasion and the exchange of ideas in the public forum...this is about their drive to win an existential war, and tolerance and respect for others is counter-productive and outmoded. "Conservative ideas are not incorrect, they are evil, and conservatives are insane for holding them."

So, that force...the old left...for resisting the attack on free speech is pretty much gone. What about conservatives? Not always good news there, either.

It isn’t even necessarily the most extreme. Extreme, like provocative, is in the eye of the beholder. But one thing the video of the attack on Lars Vilks in Sweden makes clear is that being shocking and offensive isn’t something one’s fellow men will line up to defend with their lives and sacred honor.

Here I strongly disagree; Swedes...emasculated by decades of state-mandated Big Brother hyper-civility...will not line up, stand up, or even show a pulse in defense of the speech of another. There was one shining, proud little exception in that sorry episode, a young lady.

While I and most everyone I know deplored Piss Christ in our very core, if someone attacked Andres Serrano in my presence, I'd have moved to stop the attack.

When confrontation does erupt, it’s very often over subversive or provocative expression: images or words juxtaposed deliberately to shock or incite. The thing about this form of expression is that people instinctively know there is nothing noble about it.

Absolutely! There was nothing noble about Piss Christ. It was ignoble. I suppose that was the guy's intent. But that does not mean anyone gets to shut him down by dint of force. Persuasion, YES! Compulsion, NO!

This is not an argument over the right to be “provocative” or “offensive”; rather, it is something much more significant — an argument over who gets to determine what counts as provocative or offensive in the first place. The Western world dragged itself out of the church-dominated Dark Ages and into the Enlightenment in part over this precise issue: the freedom to engage in speech and actions which formerly had been classified as the crime known as “blasphemy.”

But there is an area I have to note before passing from the polluted realm of Piss Christ; Serrano, while claiming a free-hold on the First Amendment for himself, demonstrated he is its enemy. How? He denied the right of others to express their freedom of speech; he took money from Americans who, in turn, had that money taken from them under compulsion.That put him in the role of censor, as he denied others THEIR FREEDOM to support or not support his "art"...his expression.

Put another way, Serrano demands a right for himself...and would benefit by my protection of that right (though I deplored his expression)...while denying me that same right by willingly forcing me and others of like mind any choice as to our expression. Serrano's real work should be called Piss Rights.

I am not holding my breath to see news of Serrano's Piss Mohamed. My opinion of Serrano is that he is a very self-interested, hypocritical, cowardly "iconoclast".

In that, he has ample company. There are cowards aplenty in the vanguard of American arts and the academy. Defense...and the exercise...of free speech seems to fall to us "little people" in the American hinterlands; places and people generally held in contempt by those whose rights we would, have, and do defend.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Generally, I like and admire Judge Andrew Napolitano. Generally, I like and admire John Stossel. But sometimes Libertarians seem hell-bent on making themselves politically impotent by saying stuff that is just nuts.

I've said and written for decades that Libertarians have all the practical political power of a Star Trek convention. There are great reasons for that, as displayed very nicely on last week's Stossel program on Fox.

Judge Napolitano held forth for the proposition that kiddie porn is protected free speech under the First Amendment...sort of. He said that consuming kiddie porn is protected, and is nobody's business, but that producing kiddie porn is bad and should be proscribed. That is nuts, and for various reasons.

He also said something to the effect that outlawing kiddie porn was a species of prohibition, and we all know how well that works...wink, wink. Stossel's studio audience seemed to warmly agree.

But the reality is that prohibition works fine way more often than it does not. Napolitano either does not know that, or he was being disingenuous. Either way, his position is completely irrational.

We prohibit murder, theft, reckless driving...any number of things. We do that very successfully, which is not to say that these things are never done. Only that they are very successful examples of prohibition working.

Don't care for those examples? How about our prohibition of private possession of high explosives? How about our prohibition of highly radioactive material in private hands? Or pathogens?

As I asserted, prohibition works more often...by far...than it fails to work. And it does fail to work, and often spectacularly. Why? Because the scheme of prohibition is not popularly supported. When it is supported popularly, prohibition works very well.

So Napolitano is just talking nonsense when he asserts that prohibition is a bad idea.

He's also ignoring economic basics when he suggests that you can have a demand for something (i.e., kiddie porn), while prohibiting supply. That is simply wrong. If you allow the demand to go without proscription, you WILL have someone moving to provide whatever people are demanding. That is a certainty.

An example is criminalizing prostitutes, while letting their johns go without penalty. It is silly and wrong.

I also take violent exception to the Stossel theme that the First Amendment covers...or should cover...the exchange of any kind of idea. Kiddie porn is a great example of ideation that society has a real, obvious and totally constitutional interest in suppressing.

Which leads us to another of Yurhonor's fallacious statements: if there is some disparate standard of law in one community than another, that is unconstitutional (i.e., as in obscenity law). Bullspit! We call that Federalism. This is a favorite canard among SOME libertarian thinkers. They point to the horror of Blue Laws, which I agree are dumb. But I also support the idea of local people expressing even dumb notions in law, so long as I have the option of removing myself to a different locale if I find those laws sufficiently onerous. We want that in America. The alternative is totalitarianism, where we have a homogenized law that falls on us all, regardless of our values and standards.

In some jurisdictions, killing a litter of kittens or puppies (unless you are the authorities) is considered a crime. In vast swaths of the American hinterland, it is considered responsible stewardship. Farmers and ranchers live much more reality-driven lives, and we don't have "authorities" to whom we delegate unpleasant tasks that nature insists somebody perform. If some urbanite finds it anathema that kittens should be killed (outside the local animal shelter), I can live with that. So can the Constitution.

Like a lot of conservatives, I share a lot of common cause with libertarians. I have trouble when their ideology leaves the realm of reason, which sometimes they allow it to do. See Rand Paul...

"I believe that it's possible in the next 20 years for vehicles to use half the fuel and produce half the pollution that they do today."

People used to believe they could change lead to gold, too. Then came the development of what we call "science".

People used to believe that perpetual motion was a distinct possibility. The laws of physics sort of screwed that up.

Mr. Obama, engineer deluxe, also soberly told us that we could save more oil with properly inflated tires than we could produce by drilling up known resources. Babs Boxer, stupidest woman in the U.S. Senate repeated that larf just days ago.

Reality is different. Heavy trucks today universally use sophisticated computer engine controls to wring every bit of fuel efficiency possible out of a gallon of diesel fuel. They are universally turbo-charged, partly to assure complete burning of fuel to reduce emissions. We are bumping the limits of engineering...or as we realists call it "science".

Obama may BELIEVE any number of ludicrous things are possible. Were he just an ignorant fool, that would be one thing. But having a man MANDATE unicorn engineering is DANGEROUS to a nation that depends on RATIONAL decisions.

Morton said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

“I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton said.

But, as Bruce McQuain points out, thinking about the Arizona law isn't really part of Morton's job description; enforcing IMMIGRATION law is his job.

Deciding what is or is not "good government" at the state level is not Mr. Morton's job, either. That job belongs to the people of Arizona. Who are, BTW, supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

Morton’s disapproval differs from the stance of, say, Apollonic Arizona bureaucrat Gary Pierce. Morton’s agency “handles detentions and deportations,” according to Politico’s Ben Smith, which means that his opinion—again, unlike that of Pierce—actually matters. Smith also adds, “Morton's position also appears aimed at undercutting the argument from the state law's advocates that it is harmonious with existing federal law.”

Apparently, the Eastern elitist writers and readers of that pap have no issue with Morton's official declaration of outlawry. His opinion...and his actions...certainly DO matter.

Morton's signal that he intends to selectively defy his duty, out of a callously political motive, WILL matter to the American people, and to the courts. It tells us, again, about the Obamic orientation to democracy and the rule of law.

We are all asked what it is we conservatives are conserving. Our answers are sometimes quite different, one from another. Sometimes, we are told what we think by people who do not know us, some of whom do not like us or wish us well. We should know what we think and believe, and we should be able to express it well to others. So the question of conserving what? is important.

I have been chewing on the "What do you conservatives conserve" question for years, and with some success. I knew what I believed, and what I value. But the problem is in framing it so that others understand. For instance, when I ask a lot of people what it is they want to conserve, they say, "The American Way Of Life".

Well, that can work for us, if we have a clear common understanding of what that is. Trouble is, we don't, I'm afraid. I don't think my vision of the American way of life has a lot in common with Barack Hussain Obama's version, or that of Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah Wright. Or sometimes Joe Dokes or John Doe.

But I think I found something that I can say I conserve, and maybe it has a lot in common with what it is you conserve.

A lot has been written lately in connection with the trend in our society to accommodate Islamist extremist views. It should be the subject of a lot of writing, thinking, and acting. My thinking solidified around something...a cri de guerre...Mark Goldblat wrote in Reason on the subject. “You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me.”

That was it. That is what I'm conserving. I am conserving the Enlightenment. And maybe that doesn't seem like the holy grail of slick communication to you. I mean, do we have a common understanding...or common enough understanding...of what the Enlightenment means for that to be a great focus for thought? Is the Enlightenment really great as our brand?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that one, but I think it either is pretty universal, or we should make it so. For certain, that would be no bad thing to work at. What was...is...the Enlightenment?

Well, let me disclaim quickly any pretense at scholarship or particular knowledge on the subject. I'm just a guy, a country lawyer who's done a lot of things in life, and read some stuff. So what I say here is prone to well-founded criticism by people who may know a lot more, but here goes; the Enlightenment was a process of bringing humanity out of the long night of the Middle Ages. It depended on reason, and the development...or redevelopment or re-imposition...of rational thinking, leading to modern science. It depended on the development of systems of laws and equity...occurring on very different tracks...that eventually were merged into modern legal systems. It depended on a vision of man that realized certain verities...what we call human nature...that are constant, predictable, and general across our race. It held eventually that each man and each woman held potential, and that their potential could be used well or badly, as they individually chose to use it. Eventually, the Enlightenment brought humanity the system of cooperation, effort, communication, failure and reward that we call today capitalism. Eventually, it led to a totally new, unheard of set of ideals that were worked out, with considerable trial and error, into what we know as the Constitution and its Bill Of Rights.

Of course, there is a lot more to it than that. We'll kick this around some more...

What did all that do, really? Well, for my ancestors and yours, having a chair to sit on was considered high living. Having the right to hold that chair against the demand of a noble was unheard of. If you got a chair, you would loose a chair if they wanted it, and there was nothing wrong with that; nothing you could do about it. We lived in the dark mostly, we died young, our children died in infancy, we saw little of the world, were mostly always uncomfortable, we were pretty much afraid of everything we didn't understand...which was everything, we were hungry a lot, sick a lot, and exhausted a lot. If, in the process of living that dark, harsh life, we had a thought...or wanted to get one...we had a problem; thoughts were hard to come by and hard to express. Books were precious things, few in number, and an impenetrable mystery to most of humanity, who did not read. Plus, if that thought of yours offended somebody, they could silence it...and you.

So, put me down in the pro-Enlightenment column. I want to preserve that stuff that millions of people worked out for us, for our benefit in this time. I want to conserve the zenith of human existence on this planet, and not surrender it to another Dark Age...no matter who it is that's working to impose it on me and mine, or you and yours.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

At virtually the same time, two West Memphis, Arkansas policemen were being gunned down and Deemocrat legislatures were giving big love to El Presidente Calderon, Obamic sock puppet.

Two people, driving a Dodge Caravan with Ohio plates, were stopped on one of the prime arteries for drug smugglers moving loads into the Mid-west and east. The two officers who stopped them were, undoubtedly, using sophisticated profiles for drug smugglers, and were tasked expressly with drug interdiction. One was the son of the W. Memphis police chief. They were both killed by fire reportedly from AK-47s.

Not long thereafter, while traffic was deadlocked on I-40 by police road-blocks, the killers were cornered by a strong force of police and Sheriff's officers. There, the 71 year-old local sheriff, mere days from retirement, and his chief deputy were also shot and wounded by the killers. Police gunned the pair down in response. This exchange happened in a crowded Wal-Mart parking lot, while customers and employees sheltered for their lives.

Reportedly, the chief deputy was hit by multiple rounds, and is in critical condition. The Sheriff was less seriously wounded.

According to some reports, the killers were Hispanic men, but there was no authoritative word on their identity to support that.

This is, I freely admit, mere deduction, but it seems likely the killers of these officers were drug gangsters on their way to Chicago or another large American city.

Dennis Blair was no great shakes, but he was also no Eric Holder lawyers-firster. His acrimonious departure from the Greek columns of Obamic leadership bodes ill for the security of the U.S.

Whatever else might be said of Blair, he was at least a military man...at points in his career. He was one of a VERY few such men anywhere near Obama. His departure should be seen as a win for the Eric Holder branch of the Obami, which can only be a bad thing for America.

In a short resignation statement, Blair leaves us a clue that he thought little of his boss. There is no mention of Obama...no expression of gratitude for working with the President.

I can't image what Rand Paul was thinking when he accepted the spiders' invitation to their webs. NPR and Rachel Madcow's lair are not places ANY conservative/libertarian with a brain and senate ambitions should CONSIDER going.

Paul adroitly shot himself in the foot in both hostile venues. This was simply a stupid, unforced error. And for what, exactly? What's the up-side of even giving Madcow the time of day?

Even in a more neutral setting, a CANDIDATE for the U.S. Senate HAS to have brains enough not to blunder into an area where a blogger or academic might...and arguably SHOULD...go.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a shining moment for REPUBLICANS...who broke the back of the racist Dixiecrats led by the likes of OwlGore's daddy. It was a shining moment in America's striving for a more equitable nation. AS WRITTEN, it was a fine law...which we can say with perfect justification has been grossly perverted over time.

But a SENATORIAL CANDIDATE on a national stage, KNOWING that the MSM will outright lie about your positions, HAS GOT to be smarter, cannier, and better prepared than to dither into territory that can ONLY damage them.

We might deplore that our politics is what it is. But ESPECIALLY people who oppose the delusions of the collective HAVE to know how to play the game in the big leagues...to know reality and deal with it intelligently and creatively. Paul better pull up his socks.

There is a reason Mexican Presidente Filipe Calderone is in Washington, D.C. It isn't to eat Mexican food at a White House state dinner. Obama needs some juice behind his push to get "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty) through Congress. There is the purpose for Presidente Puppet's visit.

Of course, Calderone and Obama share common cause: passing a new amnesty law that will benefit the Deemocrat collective and the Mexican collective, while damaging America.

Just now, there isn't a chance in hell that Obama will get his comprehensive (meaning "totalitarian") immigration reforms though Congress. Which means he can't hope for millions of new ostensibly Deemocrat voters. He needs some momentum.

Calderone's speech whizzed all over America's leg in the name of racial fairness.

"I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduced a terrible idea using racial profiling for law enforcement."

But Mexican law EXPRESSLY provides that race is a factor in whether or not it will allow people to immigrate to Mexico; "the equilibrium of the national demographics". Does anyone...anyone...believe that an overwhelming influx of African, Asian, or European immigrates would be tolerated by the Mexican government?

As to the BS that Mexico suffers from increased violence because of American gun control law, does ANYONE think that Mexican drug gangs can't get weapons from anywhere they want? Is anyone STUPID enough to think that fully automatic weapons used by these thugs come from the U.S. via civilians? Americans CANNOT legally purchase a fully automatic weapon (without a very expensive stamp and extensive check).

So, the purpose of this puppet's visit is MANIFESTLY to influence the American political process; he's here to flop the race card, and the gun control card on the Congressional table. He's here to put a little momentum in the stalled Deemocrat push for amnesty.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Today in remarks again slamming a law I doubt he's read, THE ONE deplored Arizona's effort to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants, while calling for a solution that will open the wound further. He said something with which I agree, but I doubt he meant a word of it.

“I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law,” he said. “We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights, because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person, be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”

Fine. Excellent. Total concurrence.

Of course, the Arizona law is specifically designed to assure every component of that statement. Every one. I know, having read it. I know, since he keeps distorting it, Obama is either ignorant of it, or he's lying.

No LAW ABIDING person needs be concerned. If one of us is "subject to suspicion", it cannot be "simply because of what we look like".Not if the law is followed. Plus, if we become suspect, we can quickly and painlessly dispel the suspicion by providing one of many forms of documentation the law provides, showing we are, indeed, a "law-abiding person".

Of course, as Calderon made clear, migration must be legal. Unimpeded. Free. For all Mexicans into the U.S. But not for anyone into Mexico!

Christopher Hitchens is not fooled by the unicorn and rainbows foreign policy Obami are practicing with Iran. We are GOING to be facing a nuclear Iran shortly, and Obama will not do anything effective to keep that from happening, by all appearances.

Taken together, these Obamic failures to deal in the real...VERY DANGEROUS...world will be the causes of a catastrophic effect on American interests and our security, and the death of hosts of people.

Barack Hussain Obama stood beside a visiting Mexican president as he attacked the law passed...and supported by...the democratic process in Arizona. Obama did not disagree, defend, or demur.

Arizona's law, which takes effect in July, will call for state and local police to determine if people are in the country illegally.
At the start of Wednesday's state visit to Washington, Calderon said the law discriminated against Mexicans and called for the two countries to work together to develop an immigration policy that did not force people to live in the shadows "with such laws as the Arizona law, which is forcing our people to face discrimination."

Lessee... Should we discriminate against illegal aliens, and for legal aliens? Seems kinda right to me. The alternative is to 1) surrender control of our nation to anybody who wants to enter in violation of our law, 2) prejudice the due-process rights of legal aliens and those attempting to compliantly enter our nation, and 3) go further down the road of making our laws meaningless. Oh, yeah, and slowly commit national suicide.

How about this: you pull down your laws first, Felipe. They are much more "discriminating" than ours. And they discriminate very harshly against your neighbors. Open your borders wide. See how that works for you. We'll watch your progress.

Beck has been targeted by a gauntlet of "boycotts" called by various Obami and fellow crawlers. Fox and Beck are doing a land-office business after everything thrown at them.

Weiner is using his power as a member of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection to target Goldline in particular, and gold retailers in general, for new legislation.

“Goldline rips off consumers, uses misleading and possibly illegal sales tactics, and deliberately manipulates public fears of an impending government takeover – this is a trifecta of terrible business practices,” said Weiner. He said a December report in POLITICO report prompted his scrutiny of Goldline.

“This industry goes beyond Goldline, but the Goldline circle has been particularly cynical in its cultivation of these conservative commentators,” he said. “There are two industries that are intertwined here in this cynical play: the media industry and the online gold industry, and there is a lot of blame to go around.”

What Weiner seems to resent is the marketing of precious metals as a hedge against inflation, which is all I've ever heard Beck represent he personally holds them to be during his commercials. Beck smells a rat.

“This is incredible. This is incredible,” he said. “This is again another arm of this administration coming out to try to shut me down,” he alleged, calling Weiner and the Obama administration “monsters” and the report a return to the “McCarthy era.”

Actually, it's far worse. McCarthy did not target legal businesses.

Other conservative radio programs are sponsored by gold retailers, too. Mark Levin's is one.

Levin, a rival radio host, in an email to POLITICO blasted Weiner as “a grandstanding leftist” and said of his report “there's nothing here but Weiner's self-serving assertions.”

Beck noted that Weiner's new press-boy is a Media Mutters alumni.

Weiner claims that Goldline's prices are exorbitant as compared to the "melt value" of metallic gold of the same weight. What he does not say is that people may find some utility in purchasing small lots of gold on-line from an outfit they feel they can trust. Apparently, Weiner's "report" did not bother to look very deep.

“It feels like it’s politically motivated in that neither the Congressman nor anybody from his office ever contacted executives form [sic] the company to really ask the important questions that they need to ask to understand this business,” said Albarian [Goldline CEO], adding Weiner “doesn’t get” the gold retail business. The congressman’s report, Albarian asserted, seems driven by “our relationship with Glenn Beck, which we are very happy with.”

Politico seemed far from neutral in its reportage on this:

Beck, who has taken to comparing the state of the U.S. economy to that of modern day Zimbabwe or pre-Hitler Germany, has been urging his devotees to invest in gold, and bragging about his own gold investments, since at least 2008.

Only if by INVESTING you mean taking a hedge position against inflation, and if by BRAGGING you mean relating that he holds gold for that purpose. If Politico writers listened, they'd have heard Beck say he DOES NOT suggest listeners buy gold for appreciation.

We are left to guess just what it was about these positions that made them "extreme". I mean, does Krugman get to apply that "extreme" label without any exposition of WHY he thinks something is "extreme"? Yes. Yes, he does. Of course, he IS writing for and to an audience of utterly closed minds, who know the script by rote.

But Officer Krugman seems to only be looking in one direction (his right). Profiling much, Paul?

He seems to have missed some really good examples of gob-stopping EXTREME rhetoric happening closer to home.

Chris Mathews, on a nationally broadcast TV show that nobody sees, called for the nationalization of the U.S. oil industry. He seems to like the idea of summary executions for errant oil company executives, too, a la Red China. No need to bother with that pesky "due process" stuff we endlessly fret about for mass murdering Islamists! No, indeed! Oh, and there is NO REGULATION on oil exploration, doncha know.

Woody Allen seems to approve of Mathew's totalitarian impulse. He's all about having Barack Obama have a few years as dictator.

"It would be good...if (Obama) could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly,"Allen is quoted as saying.
Well, sure, Woody! That's worked really well in the past, right? I mean, what could go wrong?

Ted Turner, Reverend Of The First Church Of I've Got Mine, soberly informed the world that the Gulf oil blow-out was God telling us something or other. Ditto the recent deaths of U.S. and Chinese coal miners. "Maybe we ought to just leave the coal in the ground and just use solar and wind power", opined Turner. Talk about your metaphysical miracles!

I dunno, Paul. Utah voters turning out a GOP squish just doesn't seem to compare on my Extreme-O-Meter. But Mathews, Turner, and Allen are your posse, so everything they said is good, right?